Odd that you want all and sundry to respond to your own questions yet I've repeatedly asked you (at least six times now) on various Threads why you keep mentioning "the McCanns" and haven't had a single response.

Anyway, you have now clarified that by "the McCanns" you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann. Why do you call her Kate McCann???

Because that is the name she chooses to use and I am not going to be disrespectful to her to call her something else.

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

I've never hear of a Presumption of Guilt.

Which two individuals are you referring to? Personally, I think there are rather more than just two miscreants in the farrago we are discussing.

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

There is a big difference between assuming guilt and saying that there is still doubt about a persons innocence.

Quite so. This is covered under a recent Thread about the Presumption of Innocence (or, indeed, Guilt, as per some of the replies).

There are those who rely only upon what is detected and its apparent import: They fail to consider what has yet to be revealed.

The End Is Nigh wrote:The question I have failed to get an answer to is why you keep mentioning "the McCanns"

Who exactly are "the McCanns"?

Do you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann?

It's not difficult.

Sorry I made it absolutely clear a good number of posts ago who I meant when I mentioned the arguidos. If you are not aware who that refers to I am not responsible for that lack of understanding on your part.

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

I've never hear of a Presumption of Guilt.

Which two individuals are you referring to? Personally, I think there are rather more than just two miscreants in the farrago we are discussing.

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

There is a big difference between assuming guilt and saying that there is still doubt about a persons innocence.

Quite so. This is covered under a recent Thread about the Presumption of Innocence (or, indeed, Guilt, as per some of the replies).

There are those who rely only upon what is detected and its apparent import: They fail to consider what has yet to be revealed.

Time will tell.

It seems many (especially in such a case as this where the three principal arguidos have been thoroughly investigated and no indication of any crime by them has been found) fail to consider that after such a thorough investigation by the PJ assisted by UK police there may in fact be nothing to reveal about them. Time will tell.

It seems many (especially in such a case as this where the three principal arguidos have been thoroughly investigated and no indication of any crime by them has been found) fail to consider that after such a thorough investigation by the PJ assisted by UK police there may in fact be nothing to reveal about them. Time will tell.

The End Is Nigh wrote:So, to be even clearer, please confirm or deny that whenever you refer to "The McCanns", you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann.

If not, who is the second ( or third. etc) McCann?

Why are you being so pedantic when I have answered this question at least twice? I made it absolutely clear I was referring to the three arguidos in the case. If you do not have the ability to work out who they are, sorry. Last word from me on the subject.

It seems many (especially in such a case as this where the three principal arguidos have been thoroughly investigated and no indication of any crime by them has been found) fail to consider that after such a thorough investigation by the PJ assisted by UK police there may in fact be nothing to reveal about them. Time will tell.

Principal arguidos?

Are there other arguidos or types of arguidos?

Yes. Their are arguidos of other cases who are not principals in this case but who are involved in this case. The one I know of is Goncalo Amaral who was also involved in this case but was made arguido himself in another case on the morning after Madeleine McCann disappeared.

Your comments are very valid but it should be remembered by all that there is neither presumption of innocence or guilt. Your emphasis on them not being actually guilty if not tried. Either is possible.

It should also be remembered that in this particular case the two individuals have been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese legal authorities and there was no indication of them having done any crime at all. Not insufficient indication. Perhaps you think the PT legal authorities are asses?

And of course the corollary to your claim about evidence not having been found is of course tht it actually might not exist. Both are perfectly possible.

I've never hear of a Presumption of Guilt.

Which two individuals are you referring to? Personally, I think there are rather more than just two miscreants in the farrago we are discussing.

I did not intend to coin (as you seem to believe I did) the term 'presumption of guilt'. I certainly did not use that term. My reference was to the fact that you were emphasising the possibility of guilt over that of innocence.

Apologies, that should have referred to the three individuals. The three arguidos in this particular case.

There is a big difference between assuming guilt and saying that there is still doubt about a persons innocence.

Quite so. This is covered under a recent Thread about the Presumption of Innocence (or, indeed, Guilt, as per some of the replies).

There are those who rely only upon what is detected and its apparent import: They fail to consider what has yet to be revealed.

Time will tell.

Indeed it will .

As Loopdaloop put it ‘ A lack of evidence does not equal innocence.’, though some would have us believe anything

The End Is Nigh wrote:So, to be even clearer, please confirm or deny that whenever you refer to "The McCanns", you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann.

If not, who is the second ( or third. etc) McCann?

Why are you being so pedantic when I have answered this question at least twice? I made it absolutely clear I was referring to the three arguidos in the case. If you do not have the ability to work out who they are, sorry. Last word from me on the subject.

Well, one reason is that you appear to be calling Kate Healy Kate McCann - not sure of the validity of that; and another reason is that you have now introduced a new concept of "principal arguido" which I simply do not have any prior knowledge of.

The End Is Nigh wrote:So, to be even clearer, please confirm or deny that whenever you refer to "The McCanns", you mean Kate Healy and Gerry McCann.

If not, who is the second ( or third. etc) McCann?

Why are you being so pedantic when I have answered this question at least twice? I made it absolutely clear I was referring to the three arguidos in the case. If you do not have the ability to work out who they are, sorry. Last word from me on the subject.

Well, one reason is that you appear to be calling Kate Healy Kate McCann - not sure of the validity of that; and another reason is that you have now introduced a new concept of "principal arguido" which I simply do not have any prior knowledge of.

But I fear we have heard your last word.

The validity is that Kate McCann calls herself Kate McCann. Had you not noticed?

Kate McCann says in her book something like until the day Madeleine disappeared she was known as Kate Healy, and the idea i got from that was that she would prefer to be called Kate Healy but the press call her Kate McCann. It maybe that most of the public wouldnt know her as Kate Healy and so would not buy her boook. Who s this writing about Madeleine?

platinum wrote:You claim not to have "especially" noticed that Kate McCann calls herself Kate McCann and that the book Madeleine was authored by Kate McCann. How funny.

I'm afraid I find there not to be anything remotely funny about a discussion which majors upon the disappearance of a defenceless young child who , as far as we are told, was left largely alonewhile her parents and their friends enjoyed their holiday in their own way.

Nothing funny at all.

And yet so many people seem to consider the parents were not negligent.

tanszi wrote:Kate McCann says in her book something like until the day Madeleine disappeared she was known as Kate Healy, and the idea i got from that was that she would prefer to be called Kate Healy but the press call her Kate McCann. It maybe that most of the public wouldnt know her as Kate Healy and so would not buy her boook. Who s this writing about Madeleine?

Odd that The End is Nigh was not aware that the Kate Healy he referred to is also the arguido and also known as Kate McCann. I do find that rather funny.

tanszi wrote:Kate McCann says in her book something like until the day Madeleine disappeared she was known as Kate Healy, and the idea i got from that was that she would prefer to be called Kate Healy but the press call her Kate McCann. It maybe that most of the public wouldnt know her as Kate Healy and so would not buy her boook. Who s this writing about Madeleine?

Odd that The End is Nigh was not aware that the Kate Healy he referred to is also the arguido and also known as Kate McCann. I do find that rather funny.

There is nothing funny at all in connection with this case and our discussion.

tanszi wrote:Kate McCann says in her book something like until the day Madeleine disappeared she was known as Kate Healy, and the idea i got from that was that she would prefer to be called Kate Healy but the press call her Kate McCann. It maybe that most of the public wouldnt know her as Kate Healy and so would not buy her boook. Who s this writing about Madeleine?

Odd that The End is Nigh was not aware that the Kate Healy he referred to is also the arguido and also known as Kate McCann. I do find that rather funny.

There is nothing funny at all in connection with this case and our discussion.

I beg to differ as is my right. I agree that there is nothing funny about the actual case but I do find your inability to process those facts rather funny.

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.